Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Lawsuit Filed Against Worcester DA Joe Early, Massachusetts State Police

    Hochgeladen von

    Melissa Hanson
    8K Ansichten23 Seiten
    A lawsuit filed June 22 in Suffolk Superior Court alleges that Worcester County District Attorney Joseph Early Jr. led a conspiracy to alter the arrest report of a judge's daughter.

    Originaltitel

    Lawsuit filed against Worcester DA Joe Early, Massachusetts State Police

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    A lawsuit filed June 22 in Suffolk Superior Court alleges that Worcester County District Attorney Joseph Early Jr. led a conspiracy to alter the arrest report of a judge's daughter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    8K Ansichten23 Seiten

    Lawsuit Filed Against Worcester DA Joe Early, Massachusetts State Police

    Hochgeladen von

    Melissa Hanson
    A lawsuit filed June 22 in Suffolk Superior Court alleges that Worcester County District Attorney Joseph Early Jr. led a conspiracy to alter the arrest report of a judge's daughter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 23
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPT. CA.NoIS 01943 G RYANN. SCEVIOUR, Plaintiff, we LIEUTENANT COLONEL FRANCIS HUGHES, LIEUTENANT COLONEL DANIEL. RISTEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOSEPH EARLY, JR., MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF STATE. POLICE, Defendants. COMPLAI Introduction This case arises out of a civil conspiracy initiated and directed by District Attorney Joseph Early Jr., (hereinafter “DA Early”), the highest law enforcement official of Worcester County, to unlawfully tamper with Court documents, to violate State Trooper Ryan Sceviour’s rights, and to defame him. In October of 2017, DA Early conceived of and entered into a conspiracy with high-ranking members of the Massachusetts State Police and others to coerce Trooper Sceviour to unlawfully alter his official police report so that DA Early could surreptitiously insert it into a court file and remove the original report. Further, DA Early and his co-conspirators agreed to discipline the plaintiff in order to force him to participate in their illegal plot. In response to Trooper Sceviour objecting to having to participate in the defendants’ unethical and illegal scheme to obstruct justice, and opposing the conduct of his supervisors, DA Early and high-ranking members of the State Police retaliated against him by making public statements claiming that he had written an improper report in order to harm a victim of the opioid epidemic. In fact, it was Trooper Sceviour who had. Performed his duties in an exemplary manner and it was the defendants who acted illegally. Ultimately, investigations conducted by both the Attomey General and an independent investigator retained by the State Police established that DA Early had instigated the conspiracy and that he and high-ranking State Police officials had acted improperly, while Trooper Sceviour had conducted himself in accordance with his training and the law. Once these findings were released, rather than accept responsibility, DA Early publicly denied that he had initiated the plot and again indicated that Trooper Sceviour had acted improperly when he prepared his report. The plaintiff hereby alleges as follows: The Parties 1. The plaintiff, Ryan N. Sceviour (“Trooper Sceviour”), at all times relevant hereto, has been employed by the Massachusetts State Police as a Trooper. 2. The defendant, the Massachusetts Department of State Police (“MSP”), is a law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts established pursuant M.G.L. ¢. 22C, s. 2. 10. ‘The defendant, Joseph Early, Jr. (“DA Early”), at all times relevant hereto, was and is the elected District Attorney of Worcester County, Massachusetts, ‘The defendant, Lieutenant Colonel Francis Hughes (“Lt. Col. Hughes”), at all times relevant hereto was employed as the Deputy Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police. Lt. Col. Hughes is being sued in his individual capacity. The defendant, Lieutenant Daniel Risteen (“Lt. Col. Risteen”), at all times relevant hereto was employed as the Commander of Field Services for the MSP. Lt. Col. Risteen is being sued in his individual capacity. Facts Ryan Sceviour is 29 years old and is currently employed as a trooper for the MSP. Prior to joining the MSP, Trooper Sceviour was employed by the Towns of Brewster and Canton as a Police Officer. Trooper Sceviour entered the State Police Training Academy in October of 2015 and graduated in April of 2016, Massachusetts State Troopers receive training regarding the writing of police reports. Troopers are trained to include all extraordinary statements made by criminal defendants when writing a report after an arrest for “Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence.” jt ee 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 mandates that the Commonwealth provide the criminal defense with “the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant.” ‘Trooper Sceviour has prepared hundreds of reports regarding various incidents and arrests during his law enforcement career. He was never disciplined in any manner relating to his reports until October 19,2017. ‘Trooper Sceviour was assigned to the Holden State Police barracks in July of 2016. On Monday, October 16,2017, he was working the 3PM to IPM shift. During his shift, he arrested a young woman named Alli Bibaud and prepared an application for a criminal complaint to issue against her for Operating Under the Influence of Narcotics, Operating Under the Influence of Liquor, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Marked Lanes Violation; and Failure to Inspect. After the arrest, he transported Ms, Bibaud to the Holden Barracks where she was given a Breathalyzer test for Aleohol and was evaluated for the use of drugs by Trooper Ali Rei,a Drug Recognition Expert. After processing, Ms. Bibaud was released on personal recognizance to the custody of her father, Judge Timothy Bibaud. During the early morning of October 17,2017, Trooper Sceviour prepared an arrest report on an MSP computer which included certain incriminating statements made by Ms. Bibaud. 20. Pa 22. 23. 25. Pursuant to MSP procedure, Trooper Sceviour sought to have the report reviewed by a supervisor. He contacted Sergeant Jason Conant (“Sergeant Conant”) who was working at the Leominster Barracks. Sergeant Conant recommended some additions to the report, Trooper Sceviour made the changes, then Sgt. Conant determined that the contents of the report were , appropriate and approved it. Sergeant Conant’s approval was noted on the document in the State Police computer system. ‘Trooper Sceviour prepared an application for criminal complaint, printed out the police report, signed it, and made copies so that the State P Court Officer could deliver it to the Worcester District Court in the moming. ‘The Court Officer delivered the report, along with the other relevant documents, to the Worcester District Court on the morning of October 17, 2017. A Clerk Magistrate in the Worcester District Court reviewed the report and associated documents and issued a criminal complaint against Ms. Bibaud. The police report was placed in the Court file. ‘Trooper Sceviour heard nothing further about Ms. Bibaud’s arrest on either October 17th or October 18th: The Conspiracy DA Early learned of the arrest of Alli Bibaud and reviewed the original report on Tuesday, October 17,2017. 2. 28. 29, 30. Bie 32. 33. DA Early was aware that Ms. Bibaud had been an employee of his office in the past, as was her father, who presently serves as a judge in Worcester County, before whom DA Early and members of his office appear. DA Early determined that his office would have a conflict of interest if prosecuted the Bibaud matter. On Tuesday, October 17th, DA Early determined that his office would not prosecute the Bibaud case. That same day, Judge David P. Despotopulos, the Chief Judge of the Worcester District Court, became aware of the arrest of Alli Bibaud. Judge Despotopulos determined that the Worcester District Court could not hear the Bibaud case because of a conflict of interest caused by the relationship that Ms. Bibaud and her father, Judge Timothy Bibaud, had with the prosecutors and judges in Worcester County. The Bibaud case was scheduled for arraignment on the morning of October 17, 2017. Alli Bibaud’s father, Judge Timothy Bibaud informed the Court that his daughter would not appear for her court date and he asked that the Worcester District Court enter a default. He sought no special treatment for his daughter either from the Court nor from the District Attorney. Rather than defaulting the criminal defendant as her father had asked, at the request of a different Worcester County judge, a lawyer named Kara Colby appeared for Ms. Bibaud and asked the Court to continue the arraignment until October 30, 2017 35. 36. ay 38. Attorney Colby also filed a motion asking the court to impound Trooper Sceviour’s police report until arraignment. On information and belief, Someone suggested to Ms. Colby that she file the Motion to Impound and it was not her idea. At this time, the plaintiff does not know who that person is. Both motions were allowed by the Court without opposition by the prosecutor. On October 17,2017, Judge Despotopulos contacted the Chief Justice of the District Courts of the Commonwealth, Judge Paul Dawley, indicated that the case could not be heard in Worcester County, and asked that the Bibaud case be assigned to another county for prosecution and adjudication. That same day, the office of Chief Judge Dawley informed Judge Despotopulos that the case would be transferred to Middlesex County and that it would be specially assigned to Judge James Sullivan who normally sits in Plymouth County. DA Early learned on October 17, 2017 that the Bibaud case would be transferred to Middlesex County for prosecution and adjudication. As of the end of business on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, DA Early was aware of the following facts regarding the Bibaud case: a. that the arraignment of the Bibaud case was rescheduled to October 30, 2017; 39. 40. 41, 42. 4B. b. that the case would be prosecuted by the Middlesex County District Attorney at the Framingham District Court before Judge James Sullivan; ¢. that the police report written by Ryan Sceviour was in the Court file and was impounded until the arraignment and any decisions regarding any continuing impoundment or redaction would be made by Judge Sullivan. As the end of business on October 17,2017, DA Early was aware that he should not take any further action regarding the Bibaud case because his office was no longer prosecuting the case and had a conflict of interest in handling the matter. Despite this knowledge, DA Early formulated a plan to obtain an altered police report and to surreptitiously replace the original report with the altered report in the court file before the case file was physically transferred. DA Early began to implement his illegal plan by contacting a member of the State Police assigned to the District Attorney’s office and asking him to facilitate the creation of an altered report. ‘The member of the State Police recognized that this action would be improper and declined to participate in the plan. Late in the afternoon of October 17,2017, DA Early telephoned former MSP Col. Richard McKeon (Col. McKeon”) and began discussing ‘Trooper Sceviour’s report with him. 47. 49, 50. om 52, Col. MeKeon and DA Early were former co-workers; specifically, Col. McKeon used to work under the supervision of DA Early. On October 18,2017, DA Early again called Col. McKeon and asked him what he was going to do about Trooper Sceviour’s report. Col. McKeon told DA Early that he could not do anything about the report because it was already in the Court file and indicated that the “ship had sailed” with regard to amending the report. DA Early persisted and demanded that Col. McKeon obtain an altered report so that the Court file could be tampered with and the original report eliminated. Beginning on October 17,2017, and for a number of days thereafter, DA Early and Secretary of Public Safety Daniel Bennett had a number of telephone conversations regarding the arrest of Ms. Bibaud. The exact content of the conversations is unknown to the plaintiff at this time. ‘Thereafter, DA Early, Col. McKeon, Lt. Col. Francis Hughes, Lt. Col. Daniel Risteen, and Major Susan Anderson entered into an agreement to coerce Trooper Sceviour to produce an altered report regarding the arrest of Ms. Bibaud, which would appear to be the original report. ‘Trooper Sceviour was home asleep on the morning of October 19, 2017 when he was woken up by a loud banging on the door of his house. ‘When he answered, a fellow State Trooper greeted him. ‘The Trooper told him that he was to report to the Holden barracks immediately. 54. 55. 56. 58. 59. él. ‘Thereafter, Trooper Sceviour retrieved two voicemails that had been left ‘on his phone by Lieutenant James Fogarty (“Lt. Fogarty”), his supervisor at the Holden barracks. The first voicemail indicated that Trooper Sceviour was to immediately report to the Holden barracks in response to a direct order from “the Colonel” regarding the arrest of “a judge’s daughter.” In the second voicemail, Lt. Fogarty told Trooper Sceviour to call him as soon as he received the voicemail because it was “extremely important.” Trooper Sceviour drove over 90 miles from his home to the Holden barracks on his scheduled day off. Upon arrival, Trooper Sceviour was met by Sergeant Conant and his union representative, Trooper Jeffrey Gilbert (“Trooper Gilbert”). ‘Trooper Sceviour, Sergeant Conant, and Trooper Gilbert met with Lt Fogarty. Lt. Fogarty informed them that he had been ordered by his supervisor, Major Anderson, to issue Sergeant Conant and Trooper Sceviour negative “Supervisory Observation Reports” in order to reprimand them for including certain statements made by Ms. Bibaud in the arrest report. Trooper Sceviour indicated that he believed his report to be proper and. protested the proposed discipline and the conduct of his supervisors. ‘The written reprimand indicated that Trooper Sceviour was being disciplined for “the negative and derogatory statements included within the gist of your report.” 65. 66. 67. 68. Sergeant Conant was reprimanded for “approving this report and allowing inappropriate commentary to be included in the report.” Lt. Fogarty told Trooper Sceviour that he had done nothing wrong and that he (Fogarty) would have included the statements if he had prepared the Teport but despite Trooper Sceviour’s insistence that his conduct was proper and the removal of any of the statements would be unethical and unlawful, Fogarty issued the discipline in accordance with the orders of the co-conspirators. Lt, Fogarty also stated that Sergeant Conant had done nothing wrong, but since Major Anderson had ordered Lt. Fogarty to issue the negative Observation Reports, “he was forced to do so.” Lt. Fogarty indicated that he did not agree that the negative Observation Reports were warranted. Lt. Fogarty and Sergeant Conant then left the barracks and Troopers Sceviour and Gilbert met with Major Anderson. During this meeting, Trooper Sceviour asked Major Anderson why she had ordered that he receive a negative Observation Report. She replied that she was also of the opinion that Trooper Sceviour had done nothing wrong but that “it was ordered by the Colonel.” Major Anderson also stated that she did not know why “they were doing this” to Trooper Sceviour. Trooper Sceviour protested and objected to the discipline. ce 70. a 12s 73. 14. 15. During the meeting, Major Anderson told Trooper Sceviour that she had arranged to change the status of his report on the computer system to return it to draft form and that he was to edit the report. She produced a copy of Trooper Sceviour's report, on which handwritten notes were visible in two different ink colors. Major Anderson indicated that edits proposed by her supervisor, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Risteen (“Lt. Colonel Risteen”), were in red ink and edits proposed by her were in black ink. Trooper Gilbert asked Major Anderson if he could have a copy of the marked up report, but she refused to give it to him and stated that he could take notes but could not have a copy of the actual document with the handwriting on it ‘Trooper Sceviour told Major Anderson that he opposed making any edits and that he believed doing so was “morally vacant.” ‘Trooper Gilbert told Major Anderson that he believed that the order to alter the report was wrong and that he did not agree with it. ‘Trooper Gilbert indicated to Major Anderson that Trooper Sceviour would only make the revisions if he were directly ordered to do so. Major Anderson responded, “this isan order Jeff, we all have bosses.” She indicated that the order had come from “Bennett” (referring to Secretary of Public Safety Daniel Bennet) to Colonel McKeon to Lt. Colonel Risteen to her. 76. 7B. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84, ‘Trooper Sceviour opposed making the edits and deletions, and asked what would happen if he refused to do so. ‘Trooper Gilbert informed him that, per protocol, he would be charged with insubordination and, consequently, would be subject to discharge if he tefused to obey Major Anderson’s direct order. Trooper Sceviour again protested, stating, “If this was some random person and not a judge’s kid, none of this would be happening.” Trooper Sceviour communicated that he opposed the order and that he believed it to be illegal. Major Anderson agreed with Trooper Sceviour’s concerns but gave him a direct order to make the re ns anyway, in an effort to eliminate certain relevant and incriminating statements made by Ms. Bibaud from the report. As a result of the illegal coercion by his supervisors, Trooper Sceviour was forced to create an altered report. Trooper Sceviour told Major Anderson that he wanted to note in his report that he had revised it because of an order by his supervisors. Major Anderson responded that he was not permitted to do so. Trooper Sceviour refused to produce a new report unless he could at the very least note on it that it had been “revised”, Eventually, Major Anderson agreed to allow Trooper Sceviour to add a notation on the report indicating that it was revised, but she did not allow him to indicate why it was revised or that he was ordered to revise it. a 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. o1 Major Anderson then ordered Trooper Sceviour to deliver the altered Teport to ADA Jeff Travers of the Worcester County District Court, who ‘was waiting for it at the direction of DA Early. Upon information and belief, at the direction of DA Early, ADA Travers attempted to arrange to place the altered, “revised” report in the court file by asking Clerk Magistrate Brendan Keenan to surreptitiously replace the original report with the altered report. Clerk Magistrate Keenan refused to participate in the illegal scheme to alter the Court file. At this point, DA Early realized that his original plan would not be successful. As a result of Trooper Sceviour’s actions, the conspirators were not able to execute their plan and the altered report was never put in the Court file. DA Early instead ordered ADA Travers to improperly bring the case forward on Friday, October 20, the day before it was set to be physically transferred to Middlesex County, without notice to Ms. Bibaud or her lawyer, and to bring an oral Motion to Redaet the report. DA Early believed that it was highly unlikely that a neutral judge would continue to impound the report or permit it to be redacted, The actions taken by DA Early to redact the report were improper and unethical. 14 93. DA Early was no longer prosecuting the Bibaud matter; thus, his actions with regard to that case subsequent to October 17, 2017 are not protected by prosecutorial immunity. 94. On October 26, 2017, a website, Turtleboy Sports, published a report indicating that District Attorney Joseph Early had contacted Colonel! McKeon and illegally arranged to have the report altered.! 95. ‘The report was picked up by a number of other news outlets from all over the world. As a result of Trooper Sceviour’s opposition to the illegal scheme, and his refusal to alter the report without marking it revised, Which resulted in the failure of the conspiracy, Col. McKeon ordered the State Police media spokesperson to make false and derogatory statements to the media regarding Trooper Sceviour, particularly that his report included improper statements that violated the standards for report-writing and that required removal.> " See https://turtleboysports.com/da-joe-early-major-susan-anderson-force-troopers-to- alter-report-for-judges-daughter-who-said-do-you-know-how-many-people-i-had-to- blow-to-get-that-after-heroin-oui-arrest! e.g., http://b lawsuit-trooper-ryan-sceviour/ (“State Po state-police-report- ice spokesman Dave Procopio told WBZ Sceviour was wrong to include comments that weren't relevant to the woman's arrest. ‘Supervisory members of the State Police, up to and including the Colonel, may review any report and have the responsibility to order any appropriate revisions. In the report in question, the revision consisted only of removal of a sensationalistic, directly-quoted statement by the defendant, which made no contribution to proving the elements of the crimes with which she was charged,’ Procopio said. ‘Inclusion of an unnecessary sensationalistic statement does not meet the report-writing standards required by the department. The revised report ~ which is clearly marked as having been revised ~ includes all observations made by troopers, all descriptions of physical evidence found in the defendant’s possession, and summaries of statements made by the defendant relative to her possession and use of heroin, all of which constitute clear evidence against her. Furthermore, both versions of the report were submitted to the court. The removal of the After the case had been transferred from Worcester County, DA Early also made false and derogatory statements to the media indicating that Trooper Sceviour had included improper statements in his report. On April 27, 2018, DA Early stated to the media that Trooper Sceviour’s inclusion of the statements did not contribute to probable cause and needlessly stigmatized Ms. Bibaud. Both statements were false and defamatory 97. DA Early has made conflicting statements to the media and to the Attorney General about his involvement in having the report altered. 98. DA Early stated that he was forced to take action to change the report because Trooper Sceviour had violated proper police policies in the way that he wrote his report and that the statements included by Trooper Sceviour were improper 99. These statements about Trooper Sceviour’s business reputation were knowingly false and defamatory. 100. The actions of the defendants have caused the plaintiff damage to his reputation, have negatively impacted his employment, and have caused him severe emotional distress. 101. After the story of the altered report broke, Col. McKeon, Lt. Col. Hughes, Lt. Col. Risteen, and Major Anderson all abruptly retired. inflammatory a \d unnecessary quotation did not change the substance of the trooper’s narrative, did not remove any elements of probable cause from the report, and, most importantly, had no impact on the charges against the defendant.” Id. ° See, e.g. http://www.telegram.com/news/2017L110/wor da-backs-impounding: report-on-judges-daughter (The DA claimed he had an obligation to remove statements that were “unnecessary for the probable cause determination, damaging to the integrity of the case, or otherwise prejudicial to the accused’s rights to a fait trial.”). Id. 16 102. 103. 104, 105. 106. 107. 108. After th MSP replaced Col. McKeon, Col. Kerry Gilpin ordered that an independent i igati Pendent investigation be conducted into the conduct of the defendants, Col. MeKeon, and Major Anderson. The investigation concluded that Trooper Sceviour had acted properly including the statements and that all of the defendants, Col. McKeon, and ‘Major Anderson, had acted improperly. Nonetheless, DA Early continued to make public statements that Trooper Sceviour’s conduct in including the statements was improper, stating that the statements were unnecessarily included and needed to be removed, causing damage to Trooper Sceviour’s business reputation ‘The false statements made by the defendants constitute defamation per se. ‘The Attorney General of the Commonwealth conducted her own investigation into the actions of the defendants, which has resulted in the matter being referred to the State hics Commission for further investigation. On October 16,2017, Trooper Sceviour was doing his job in protecting and serving the citizens of the Ci ymmonwealth when he arrested Ms. Bibaud. The arrest report written by Trooper Sceviour was consistent with his duties and complied with the highest standards of the State Police and the ethical responsibilities entrusted to him by the citizens of the Commonwealth. 109. 110. ALL. i, 113. ‘The actions of the i ie defendants, in attempting to alter court records and then attempting to justi ir acti ting to justify their actions by damaging Trooper Sceviour’s career and reputation are both shocking and outrageous. ana COUNTI ia Violation of State Constitutional Rights ‘onstitution of the Commonwealth, Chapter 12, Section 11H v. All Individual Defendants ‘The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. The plaintiff enjoys a right to his employment free from interference aimed at achieving unlawful and unethical ends, threats of suspension or termination, dation, and ccercion into aiding in unlawful and unethical acts, and without discipline for following the rule of law and opposing the defendants’ attempts to violate it. ‘The defendants violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights by inhibiting him from following the law by means of threats, intimidation, and coercion, by interfering with him performing the duties of his job within lawful and ethical bounds by means of threats, intimidation, and coe mn, and by disciplining him and subjecting him to adverse action, including public shaming and defamation, for illegal, conspiratorial purposes by means of threats, intimidation, and coercion. Asa result of the defendants’ unconstitutional and unlawful conduct, the plaintiff was reprimanded, threatened with suspension without pay, 18 intimidated, a i and coerced into committing acts to which he objected be Cause those acts were illegal and unethical 114. The plainti iscipli Plaintiff was disciplined, and suffered damage to his job security, his Teputation, and severe emotional distress, as a result of the defendants’ outrageous conduct. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff asks that this Court order that his discipline be expunged, that the defendant issue a public apology to him, and that the Court award to him compensatory damages, his costs, attorneys’ fees, and all other relief to which he is entitled by law. COUNT II Civil Conspiracy All ands 115. The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 116. The agreement between the defendants and others, made when each was knowingly acting for illegal purposes, threatened, intimidated, and coerced the plaintiff in order to accomplish unlawful ends, and then disciplined and disparaged him for it, constitutes a cons racy 117. Bach of the defendants, knowing that their conduct was illegal, unethical, and unconstitutional, acted in concert for improper and illegal purposes, and assisted and encouraged one another, in violating the plaintiff's rights and then disciplining him for opposing, and for having followed the rule of law 19 118. Asaresi S result of the def i endants’ unconstitutional and unlawful conspi racy, the plaintiff Was repr 's Teprimanded and was threatened. intimidated, and i an Mmitting acts to which he objected because those acts were illegal and unethical, 119. The plainti iscipli Plaintiff was disciplined, and suffered damage to his job security, his reputation, and severe emotional distress, as a result of the defendants” outrageous conduct. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff asks that this Court order that his discipline be expunged, that the defendants issue an apology to him and to all of the members of the State Police who were forced to participate in this immoral scheme, and to award him compensatory damages, his costs, attorneys’ fees, and all other relief to which he is entitled by law. COUNT III Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress All individual Defendants 120, The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 121. ‘The defendants intended to inflict emotional distress on the plaintiff and should have known that their conduct would inflict emotional distress on the plaintiff. 122, The defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community: 123, The distress suffered by the plaintiffs was severe and of the nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. 20 124. Asa result of a of the di " lefendants’ unconstitutional and unlawful condi plaintiff was repri ic eprimanded and was threatened, intimidated, and coerced , , Tce into committi i Ing acts to which he objected because those acts were illegal and unethical, ‘The plaintiff was disciplined, and suffered damage to his job security, his reputation, and severe emotional distress, as a result of the defendants’ ‘outrageous conduct, WHEREFORE, the plaintiff asks that this Court order that his discipline be expunged, that the defendants issue an apology to him and to all of the members of the State Police who were forced to participate in this immoral scheme, and to award him compensatory damages, his costs, attorneys’ fees, and all other relief to which he is entitled by law. COUNT IV Defamation MSP & Defendant Early 126. The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 127. Upon information and belief, the MSP, through its spokesperson and at the direction of Col. McKeon, and DA Early, knowingly made false and defamatory statements to third parties about the plaintiff and relating to the plaintiff's character and business reputation. 128. The statements made constitute defamation per se. 129, The statements falsely accuse the plaintiff of wrongdoing and were made in order to cover up the defendants’ cons ratorial and illegal conduct 24 130. AS a result, the plainti Plaintiff suffered damage to his Teputation and and severe motional distress, compensator i , 1p ry damages, his costs, attorneys’ fees, and all other relief to which he is entitled by law. 131. 132. 133. COUNT V Whistleblower v. MSP ‘The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. ‘As a result of having opposed practices and pol ies of the defendants and the MSP that he reasonably believed, and were, in violation of ethical canons, rules, regulations, and the law, the MSP retaliated against the plaintiff by instructing its spokesperson to publiely shame him and damage his career and reputation via statements to the international media that were false and derogatory. ‘Asa result of the MSP’s conduct in violation of M.G.L. c. 149, § 185, the plaintiff suffered adverse action that has harmed him and he is entitled to damages, including compensatory and treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, to the fullest extent of the law. 22 vy WHEREFORE, the plaintiff asks that this 0 fr ne be h sks is Court order that his discipl lisciy expunged, that the defendants i: ble, ani defendants issue an apology, and award him compensatory, treble, and (ory, treble, and punitive damages, his ¢ i relief to which he is entitle SSIS COSIS, attorneys’ fees, and all other relief to which he is entitled by law JURY DEMAND ‘THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL COUNTS SO TRIABLE. Respectfully submitted, ‘The Plaintiff, Trooper Ryan Sceviour, By hisatforneys,

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen